Breakenridge: There's no reason to second guess the legalization of marijuana

It took about a year and a half before the Trudeau government finally moved on its promise to legalize marijuana, and we’re still more than a year away from that promise being fulfilled.

Yet for some, this glacial pace still hasn’t been slow enough. For others, any pace at all is too much. With momentum now finally on the side of much-needed reform, some weak and bizarre arguments are being trotted out by those who wish to delay or scuttle this change.

We saw some clear examples of this last week here in Alberta.

Most notable was the argument made in a submission to Edmonton city council by Les Hagen with Action on Smoking and Health. Hagen believes that legalization will somehow threaten our success in reducing tobacco use.

It’s an odd argument, since tobacco is a good example of how drug use can be curtailed within a legal regulatory framework. For example, Canada’s rates of teen tobacco use are among the lowest in the developed world, whereas teen marijuana use in Canada is among the highest.

Hagen fears that legalizing marijuana will somehow “renormalize” smoking in public. However, he has made similar arguments against e-cigarettes, despite the fact that smoking rates have continued to decline despite (or perhaps because of) the availability of e-cigarettes.

It’s hard to see how marijuana policy and tobacco policy have much to do with each other. No one has proposed changing any rules as they pertain to tobacco use or marketing. Hagen’s argument seems premised on the faulty notion that we’re about to see an explosion in marijuana use, or that somehow prohibition has been effective.

That same notion underlies the concerns raised last week by Coun. Jim Stevenson, who fears there’s insufficient time to develop an accurate roadside test to measure marijuana impairment.

Of course, drug-impaired driving has been illegal for many decades now. People have been using marijuana for many decades. Why would we think that prohibition has made the roads safer?

Painkillers can also impair driving. We don’t have an accurate test for impairment by such medications, nor do we have an established threshold for impairment. Yet no one has suggested banning such products until we do.

In fact, a major 2015 study from the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that drivers who use marijuana are at a lower risk of a crash than those who use painkillers – and both, by the way, pale in comparison to the risk from alcohol.

If anything, though, we have more clarity here. Ottawa’s legislation establishes legal limits and lays out tougher sentencing provisions for marijuana-impaired drivers.

Stevenson has also raised concern about the time needed to develop bylaws and additional regulations, as have other municipal politicians in Alberta. However, it’s unclear why this should be so challenging.

We have bylaws around liquor stores, for example. While the retail model for marijuana will ultimately be up to the province, there’s no reason why similar rules couldn’t apply here.

And when it comes to growing marijuana plants, the federal legislation spells out rules around the number of plants and how big they can be. If the concern is the process of cultivating plants, then how is this any different from an individual or business growing, say, tomato plants?

We need to dispense with the idea that we’re rushing legalization or that this hasn’t been sufficiently studied. The recent federal task force produced a lengthy report that included some 80 recommendations. We also have the examples in U.S. states such as Washington and Colorado to look to.

If issues arise, then we can adjust as we go. Let’s not lose sleep over the supposed nightmare of shortcomings or confusion in bylaws and regulations. If that’s the worst-case scenario, then it’s a happy trade-off for smarter drug policy.

An eagerness to pile on bureaucracy or advance pet projects should not be an excuse to delay or have second thoughts about ending the failure and misery of prohibition.

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.

Connect With Us

Submit A Letter

Make sure to include your full name, phone number and address. Only your name will appear in the newspaper or on our website.